TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:FW: The Old Argument: Framemaker vs. MS Word From:Darren Barefoot <dbarefoot -at- mpsbc -dot- com> To:"'techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com'" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com> Date:Fri, 21 Jan 2000 14:00:57 -0800
I've caught some flack for my (admittedly inaccurate) statement below. What
I meant to convey, which clearly I did not, was that I wouldn't rely upon
FrameMaker over the long term. I mean, the release notes in our version,
Frame 5.5.3, indicate that it shipped in 1998. With the exception of the
recent Linux-friendly version, I haven't seen much that indicates that Adobe
is particularly interested in the product. Besides, how Web-friendly can a
product be that has a spell-checker that does not include the term
Maybe I'm off-base here, but I liked Beta video when it came out, and
originally used a Netscape browser, and got burned on both. I don't plan to
make the mistake three times. DB.
The reality is, if you want to generate a number of digital output formats
(HTML, HTMLHelp, WinHelp, PDF, etc.), FrameMaker is not a viable